Whether a woman was born in Australia or overseas does not appear to significantly affect her likelihood of experiencing sexual dysfunction, according to new research from Adelaide University.
The study found that almost half of the women surveyed met the screening threshold for female sexual dysfunction, with nearly identical rates among Australian-born and overseas-born participants.
Researchers said the findings challenge assumptions that migrant women are inherently at greater risk and suggest that broader social, economic and health circumstances may be more relevant than birthplace alone.
Nearly identical results across both groups
Researchers from Adelaide University’s School of Public Health surveyed 678 women of reproductive age living in Australia.
The participants included 342 women born in Australia and 336 born overseas.
Sexual function was assessed using the Female Sexual Function Index, a validated questionnaire covering six areas:
- Sexual desire
- Arousal
- Lubrication
- Orgasm
- Satisfaction
- Pain or discomfort during sexual activity
Using the study’s established screening threshold, 47.1 per cent of Australian-born respondents and 46.1 per cent of overseas-born respondents were classified as experiencing female sexual dysfunction.
The groups also recorded almost identical overall scores, with no statistically meaningful difference between them.
After researchers adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic differences, overseas-born women had slightly lower estimated odds of sexual dysfunction. However, the result was not statistically significant, meaning it could not be distinguished from no difference between the groups.
The findings were published in the journal Frontiers in Reproductive Health.
Birthplace should not be treated as a risk marker
Lead author Negin Mirzaei Damabi said migration status alone was not a reliable indicator of a woman’s sexual health.
The study found that factors such as age, education, income, relationship circumstances, physical and mental health, and wider social conditions may be more useful when considering individual vulnerability.
The results also showed differences associated with area-level socioeconomic circumstances and religious affiliation within parts of the sample, although the study was not designed to establish that these factors caused sexual dysfunction.
Researchers said clinicians should avoid using a patient’s birthplace as a substitute for a more complete assessment of her health, relationships and personal circumstances.
Instead, they recommended making sexual health discussions and screening more routinely available to all women, while ensuring care remains culturally responsive.
Similar patterns across six areas of sexual function
Scores across desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction and pain were broadly comparable between the two groups.
Sexual satisfaction was marginally higher among overseas-born participants, but the difference was small and did not reach conventional statistical significance.
Desire received the lowest average domain score in both groups.
The pain domain recorded the highest average numerical score. Under the Female Sexual Function Index, however, a higher pain-domain score generally indicates better function or less pain—not a greater level of pain.
This distinction is important because describing the “pain score” as high could otherwise be misinterpreted as indicating that participants experienced more pain.
Findings point to an under-recognised health issue
Female sexual dysfunction generally refers to persistent difficulties involving desire, arousal, orgasm or sexual pain that also cause personal distress.
It can be influenced by overlapping biological, psychological, relationship and social factors and may affect wellbeing, confidence and quality of life.
Senior author Associate Professor Zohra Lassi said the prevalence estimates were remarkably similar across the two groups, reinforcing the view that sexual dysfunction is not confined to one cultural or migration background.
The overall rate of 46.6 per cent was also broadly consistent with previous international research involving reproductive-aged women.
Researchers said the findings support a universal approach to sexual healthcare rather than limiting screening to groups assumed to be at higher risk.
Study limitations require caution
The study was cross-sectional, meaning participants were surveyed at a single point in time.
It therefore cannot establish whether social, economic or demographic characteristics caused changes in sexual function.
Participants were also recruited through an online convenience survey rather than a nationally representative sample. Women who chose to participate may differ from the broader population, and the results should not be interpreted as a definitive estimate for all Australian women.
The researchers also noted that both groups’ average scores were very close to the questionnaire’s cut-off point. Small changes to that threshold could therefore alter how many participants were classified as having dysfunction.
The overseas-born group included women from different countries, cultures and migration circumstances, which means the findings may not capture important differences between individual migrant communities.
Longer-term research recommended
The researchers called for longitudinal studies that follow women over time to better understand how sexual health is affected by income, education, relationships, health, migration experiences and access to care.
Future research could also examine factors such as length of residence in Australia, visa security, language access and country or region of origin.
For clinical care, the central message is that birthplace alone should not be used to predict sexual health risk.
Instead, researchers argue that all women should have access to respectful and culturally appropriate opportunities to discuss sexual function as part of primary, reproductive and mental healthcare.
Be the first to comment